CHEONG V.

Adong
Cheong Boo died intestate in Zambaoanga. The deceased left an estate which was claimed by Cheong Seng Gee
and Mora Adong. Cheong Gee, alleged that he was the legitimate child by a marriage contracted between the
deceased and Tan Dit in China. But, Mora Adong claimed that she was the lawfully married to Cheong Boo in the
Philippines, and her daughters, Payang and Rosalia.
Because of the conflicting claims to the estate, a case was filed before the Court of First Instance of Zambaonga.
The court ruled that the marriage of Cheong Boo and Mora Adong was proven but under our laws it is not
considered as a valid marriage. The court concluded that there should be a partion of the property of the deceased
and his natural children(Cheong Seng Gee, Payang and Rosalia).
WON the marriage between Cheong Boo and Tan Dit was valid?
No. The Supreme Court stated that for a foreign marriage to be valid, it must be ascertained that the foreign law
as a question of fact. No testimony as to what marriage law govern in China in the province of Amoy.
Unfortunately, from the evidence give, the Court did not sustain the marriage of Tan Dit and Cheong Boo.
Moreover, the immigration documents does not adequately prove Cheong Boos alleged first marriage, but only
show the relation of the deceased and his son.
Won the Mohammedan marriage between Cheong Boo and Adong was valid?
Yes. Section V of the Marriage Law provides that "Marriage may be solemnized by either a judge of any court
inferior to the Supreme Court, justice of the peace, or priest A Mohammedan Iman is a "priest or minister of the
Gospel," and Mohammedanism is a "denomination," within the meaning of the Marriage Law
We find the Mohammedan marriage to be proved and to be valid, thus giving to the widow and the legitimate
children of this union the rights accruing to them under the law
People v. Patalin
Accused-appelants Alex Mijaque and Alfonso Patalin were charged with crime of robbery with multiple rape. The
Regional Trial Court sentenced them to a death penalty. However, a ratification of the 1987 Constitution stated in
its provision that the death penalty was abolished. The Congress was given the prerogative to revive the
punishment at its discretion. ongress eventually restored the death penalty by virtue of Republic Act No. 7659 or
the Death Penalty Law which took effect on January 1, 1994.
Accused-appelants averred that the ratification of the Constitution should have a retroactive effect, being
beneficial to them. Moreover, they are not covered by the reinstatement of the death penalty in The Death
Penalty Law.
WON the accused are entitled to the retroactivity effect of the death penalty.
Yes. At the time of such ratification, the instant case was still at its trial stage. No penalty had as yet then been
imposed. Considering that the provision provides that *a+ny death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua, it is clear that the framers intended said provision to have a retroactive effect on cases
pending without any penalty of death having been imposed yet. Thus, their penalty is reducted to reclusion
perpetua.
Cui v. Arellano University
Emetoro Cui, a scholar, was a student in the College of Law at the Arellano University. Cuis scholarship was
granted with an agreement that: "In consideration of the scholarship granted to me by the University, I hereby
waive my right to transfer to another school without having refunded to the University (defendant) the equivalent
of my scholarship cash. When he enrolled for the last semester of his law studies, he failed to pay his tuition. Cui
decided to transfer and finished his law degree at Abad Santos University. After his graduation he returned to
Arellano University, in satisfaction for application in the bar, he requested for his transcripts of records. The school
refused on the ground that the plaintiff must pay the last semester of his last year.
The Director of Private Schools issued Memorandum no. 38, stated that, the students should not be
subsequently charged to the recipient students when they decide to quit school or to transfer to another
institution. Scholarship should not be offered merely to attract and keep students in a school.
Plantiff asked the assistance of the Bureau of Private Schools.The defendant, however, refused to release the
transcript of record even if the Bureau released a written order. The defendant even challenged the validity of the
memorandum released by the Director of Private Schools.
WON the plaintiff waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding Arellano University the
equivalent of his scholarships in cash. "In consideration of the scholarship granted to me by the University, I
hereby waive my right to transfer to another school without having refunded to the University (defendant) the
equivalent of my scholarship cash. The aforesaid memorandum merely incorporates a sound principle of public
policy
No. The defendant should have understood the real essence of scholarships and realized that asking plaintiff to
sign a waiver, was a direct violation of the Memorandum. The contract is void because it is against public policy
and morals.
Scholarships are granted not to attract and to keep brilliant students in school for their propaganda mine but to
reward merit or help gifted students in whom society has an established interest or a first lien.The defendant
sentenced by the court to pay plaintiff.
Ang Pin v. RTC
An ejectment case was filed in the MTC. The res Julio Ko and Zenaida Ko were ordered to vacate the premises and
pay the the rental fee to the pet Ang pin. The aggrieved party filed a case in RTC. RTC modified the judgement. In,
IAC the respondents question the decision of the MTC on the ground that the judge had already retired.
RTC affirmed the judges decision and modified the rental fee to paid to pet from 5,000 per month rentals their
pre-litigation level of P500.
Pet filed for motion for recon and entry of judgement but was deinied. Subsequently, they filed a motion for
execution of the judgement inMTC. The private res opposed on the ground that a complaint for annulment of sale
which they filed with the RTC was decided in their favor.RTC promulgated there decision that the sale was null and
void, on grouds of equity under article 19 of the civil code.
MTC granted and executed the motion for execution in the ejectment case
Pet filed on the appellate courts. They contend that RTCs nullification of sale and title and reconveyance case does
not as yet confer on the res any enforceable right whereas this Court has alredy entered judgement in the
ejectment case.
WON respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion and/or acted or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
writ of preliminary injunction.
Yes. The respondent judge of CFI acted with grave abuse of discretion in preventing the executory judgement of
the municipal court in the ejectment case because another possessory action was pending in his court involving
the same land.
From the foregoing, it is plain that the law is on the side of the petitioners. The injunction was improperly issued.
The Intermediate Appellate Court ruled that the promulgation of the trial court's decision was defective and
ordered it repromulgated but this Court set aside the appellate decision and reinstated the metropolitan trial court
and regional trial court decisions.
The only function of a lower court, when the judgment of a higher court is returned to it, is the ministerial one of
issuing the order of execution. A lower court is without supervisory jurisdiction to interpret or to reverse the
judgment of the higher court.
Maria Carolina Aurelio v. Aquino

A case was filed before the Supreme Court assailing the constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration
Program(DAP). Petitioners contend that the DAP should be unconstitional on the ground that it contravenes
section 29(1) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution that *n+o money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.The DAP provided the Executive a gateway to allocate public money
pooled from programmed and unprogrammed funds of its various agencies in the guise of the President exercising
his constitutional authority.
Jinggoy Estra revealed that he received an incentive for voting in favor the impeachement of Chief Justice Renato
Corona. Secretary Florencio Abad of the Department of Budget and Managemetn explained that the funds relaes
to Senator had been part of DAP. The DAP was created to accelerate economic expansion and has been sourced
from savings genereated by the Govt
WON DAP violates the Constitution.
Yes.
Article 7 of the Civil Code provides: Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or
non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declared a
law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or
executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the
Constitution
A legislative or executive act that is declared void for being unconstitutional cannot give rise to any right or
obligation
In order to sustain their constitutional challenges against official acts of the Government, the petitioners must
discharge the basic burden of proving that the constitutional infirmities actually existed.205 Simply put, guesswork
and speculation cannot overcome the presumption of the constitutionality of the assailed executive act
We find the doctrine of operative fact applicable to the adoption and implementation of the DAP. Its application to
the DAP proceeds from equity and fair play. The consequences resulting from the DAP and its related issuances
could not be ignored or could no longer be undone.
Edencia v. David
Saturino David(respondent), collector of internal revenue, collected the income taxes of Justice Pastor Edencia and
Justice Fernado Jugo(petitioners). The respondents contend that this was a diminution of the compensation and
therefore was in violation of the Constitution, section 9, Article VIII of our Constitution: They shall receive such
compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The RA590 of Congress interpreted the law saying that it is legal for the collection of income tax on the salaries of
judicial officers.
WON the collection of income tax in the Judiciary is valid.
No.
The collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a diminution thereof and so violates the
Constitution. We further hold that the interpretation and application of the Constitution and of statutes is within
the exclusive province and jurisdiction of the Judicial department, and that in enacting a law, the Legislature may
not legally provide therein that it be interpreted in such a way that it may not violate a Constitutional prohibition,
thereby tying the hands of the courts in their task of later interpreting said statute, specially when the
interpretation sought and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous interpretation already given in a case
by the highest court of the land.
Rosales v. CFI Lanao del Norte
Estelita Rosales, pet, advised the private res to vaced the leased premises because of the lapse in their agreement
term, and violation of res in their agreement. Res claimed that they had a verbal agreement for a period of 10
years and that the pets consented to the improvements of their building. He immediately filed a case before the
CFI for an action for the continued enforcement of the lease contract. The said court issued a restraining order a
day before the expiration of the said contract.
Ten days later, the petitioners filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the City Court. Res filed a case before
the cfi to dismiss the ejectment suit. Pet motion was denied.
whether or not the lessee should be allowed to continue occupying the land as lessee.
The provision of the lease contract entered into between petitioner and respondent is apparently clear that unless
the lessor and lessee agreed to a renewal thereof at least thirty days prior to the date of expiration, the lease shall
not be renewed. The facts on record show that despite the exchange of communication, proposals and counter-
proposals, between the parties regarding a renewal of the lease, they were not able to arrive at an agreement
within said period for while the lessor wanted an increased rental the lessee, on the other hand, proposed for a
reduction. With this failure of an agreement, it is to be presumed that the lessee was aware that an ejectment case
against him was forthcoming.
NACTOR V. IAC
The respondents, sps melchor, allowed Guillermo nactor, petitioner, to buil a shany on their prop without any
contract or rental. Nactor then built houses for his relative w/o the consent of the spouses. As a result, the
respondents demanded him to leave but he adamantly refused. In the MTC, the trial court ruled in favor of the
spouses. The motion for reconsideration by petitioner was denied on the ground that he filed is complaint on June
24, 1985, which was considered late. Pet appealed to the CA but they affirmed the decision of RTC.
WON the motion for reconsideration filed on june 24 is already late by one day.
In art 13, In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included.
Although the deadline of the motion was June 23, 1985 which was a Sunday, the pet correctly argued that the
deadline is deemed to be on the next day.
However, in case the last day is a Sunday or a legal holiday, it is understood that where the time refers to a period
prescribed or allowed by the Rules of Court, by an order of the court, or by any other applicable statute, the last
day should really be the next day, provided said day is neither a Sunday nor a legal holiday. The law cannot require
compliance on a day when entities supposed to receive pleadings or documents are closed in view of the holiday.
Bellis v. Bellis
Amos Bellis was born in Texas. He had two marriages. 8 legitimate children and 3 illegitimate children. When Amos
died, The Peoples Bank and Trust Copy, as executor of the will, gave the illegitimate children, respondents maria
bellis and Miriam bellis, a share of stocks.The res filed their opposition on the partioion on the ground they were
deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children. The lovwer court approved the executors partition. Relying on
art 16 of the civil code, the national law should be followed, which in this case is the Texas law, which did not
provide for legitimes.
WON the TEXas law or Phil law should be applied.
The Texas Law should govern. Decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his
death.2 So that even assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of the
domicile) should govern, the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still
refer to Texas law.
Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced
heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of
successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the
testacy of Amos G. Bellis
UE v. Jader
Romeo Jader, student, was a student of College of Law in UE. During the first semester of his fourth year, he failed
to take the final examination in Practical Court I. He was given a complete grade. He filed an application for the
removal of the incomplete grade which was approved by dean. He took the exam on March 28, 1988. On May 30,
1988, his professor submitted his grade. It was a grade of 5.
Before the graduation, respondents name was included in the list of candidates for graduation. The res
participated in the commencement exercise and was even given a diploma. Upon preparing himself for the bar
examination, he learned of the deficiency.
Res sued pet for damages arising from latters negligence. He prayed for an award of moral and exemplary
damages. Pet denied liability argued that they never misled res that he completed the requirements. The rtc and
ca affirmed that pet must pay.
WON UE is guilty of negligence.
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.
Petitioner ought to have known that time was of the essence in the performance of its obligation to inform
respondent of his grade. It cannot feign ignorance that respondent will not prepare himself for the bar exams since
that is precisely the immediate concern after graduation of an LL.B. graduate. It failed to act seasonably. Petitioner
cannot just give out its student's grades at any time because a student has to comply with certain deadlines set by
the Supreme Court on the submission of requirements for taking the bar. Petitioner's liability arose from its failure
to promptly inform respondent of the result of an examination and in misleading the latter into believing that he
had satisfied all requirements for the course. Worth quoting is the following disquisition of the respondent court:
Petitioner was guilty of negligence and thus liable to respondent for the latter's actual damages, we hold that
respondent should not have been awarded moral damages. If respondent was indeed humiliated by his failure to
take the bar, he brought this upon himself by not verifying if he has satisfied all the requirements including his
school records, before preparing himself for the bar examination.